That's because people are throwing up false equivalencies.
Amazing you're suddenly getting upset about this...despite the continual attempt by many to throw up a false equivilency to "nigger" and "redskin". Or the false equivilency of saying that calling a raped woman a "slut" and claiming you meant "kitchen maid" is the same as what the Washington Redskins are doing with "Redskin".
You're arguing against false equivilancies? Well that's all fine and good, but if your argument against it is flawed then it's flawed regardless if the intent behind the argument is right.
You're correct, all things AREN'T equal. But that doesn't change the fact you're arbitrarily changing the bar for how you're measuring things to fit your agenda and yet attempting to act like you're somehow being consistent. I'm not saying you have to view all things as equal, I'm suggesting it's dishonest of you to act like people are suggesting things must be equal if they simply point out the flaws in your logic of how you're deeming them unequal.
I have stated that it is not okay to disparage anyone.
But you've stated that there should not be outrage over a non-minority being disparaged. You've also indicated that someone speaking disparaging to a non-minority does not "affect" them the same as doing it to a minority.
You also defined "minority" based on NUMBERS at one point, suggesting that "10%" of a minority population (a NUMBER) is enough that it must be respected due to the rights of the minority. So I pointed out a case based on NUMBERS of females NOT being a minority and suggested that...by your logic...there should not be outrage over using a slur towards them and that it shouldn't "affect" them the same way that it affects a minority.
This was not a "false equivilency", this was using the standards, words, and logic
YOU put forward. And then you decided to change things up because suddenly your previous measure of "minority" didn't work for the new example so you had to shift it. Going directly to the point I made prior to you doing that....which was that the notion of "Owwww, the poor minorities! No tyranny of the majority" was a cobbled together emotional plea that was not based on any actual principle but was simply an ever moving idea that shifted based on agenda, not any kind of actual logic.
Calling a white person a "cracker" is not the same thing as calling a black person the n-word.
And a 80 year old team named The Redskins is not the same as naming a team today the Niggers, but your seeming annoyance with false equivilancies sure doesn't get you complaining about that.
You're not getting an argument from me on the notion that cracker isn't equal to nigger. It's not. I've said that many times on this forum. Context matters.
The world is not binary. There are shades of grey.
Absolutley. Difference being I actually generally acknowledge that consistently, not just when it suits me.